My new mini layout

[valkyriepm]

Hi guys! Can't wait anymore! Even when I have other projects on the workbench, can't stop thinking on the next layout. So, I've been playing with scarm and track I have available and came up with a little desing based on a layout seen on the net some time ago in the dissapeared blog of Mr. Hidetaka Ishijima (great layouts!). My problem comes withe height gradient to meet the right height on the left curve. Any ideas on this? I don't have yet defined the design.

 

First design:

 

Second, reduced size, but I think I'll go back to the original size:

 

And where I am now: started the elevation earlier but still too much, Was thinking on making an exit to the station on the right:

 

Well, that's all for now. Any super suggestions welcomed! :) :)

 

Martin

Edited February 21, 2017 by valkyriepm

[kvp]

Imho there are two things to consider. One is the type of the layout as a diesel or steam mountain line could get away with a less tall loading gauge, like around 4 cm. Also if you take the original plan and calculate the curve, you'll get a 3.1% grade up to the crossing point. That's within the 4% mountain line gradient. If you talk about something more extreme, like the Hakone Tozan line, then you'll get 3.8% with 5 cm height difference which should leave enough room for the pantographs.

 

If you want mainline gradients (around 2%), then you'll need twice the length. In this size, the only realistic way to achive something similar is with a switchback station, that starts the left ramp on the right side and leaves only the station tracks fully level.

 

Personally i would go with a 4% limit, lower the height difference as much as possible and check if the rolling stock meant for the line could take the curves and the gradients. Adding a few straights and moving the crossing point to the right as much as possible could also work. I attached an example of this with a 4 cm clearence and 2.7 and 2.4% gradients. The tunnels are there to hide the fact that the up and down ramps are next to each other and have to share a common tunnel space. A 5 cm height would get you 3.37 and 3%, that still looks acceptable for a mountain line with very tight curves.

[valkyriepm]

Thank you kvp! I'll make this so I can use of most of the Tomytec two-car EMUs I have around. You mention some interesting points. I'll keep playing around with the Scarm.

 

Martin

[valkyriepm]

Ok... I think I'm getting closer, even a little bigger than initially planned:

 

 

It would have an industrial line on the right, the Greenmax single-side station plus Greenmax double station with a service line and in the middle top, the Kato double shed. Have to check the measures, but would be a combination of mountain, city and factory.

 

Let me know what you think guys!

 

Martin

[AllScales]

That looks very good, what are the two spurs for on the hill?

 

I guess it's freight, but where does it go?

[velotrain]

That looks very good, what are the two spurs for on the hill?

 

I guess it's freight, but where does it go?

 

"and in the middle top, the Kato double shed."

[AllScales]

Doh!

[valkyriepm]

Ordered the tracks needed. I'm still playing with the design. I like the way it is, but feel that on all that space could make something else. Tried making a double track but no good. On the other hand, the way it is leave more space to play with scenery. Well, any suggestions welcomed!

 

Martin

[valkyriepm]

Hi guys! Little advance on the planning. I've been playing with the design and added another loop maybe for a larger train. Anyway, I still think the previous was better, as it allow me to work with the landscape. Please, let me know what you think!

 

Martin

 

[velotrain]

I agree with you that the new plan starts to be too busy, and the two tracks near the enginehouse are crazy close to each other.

 

I realize you're putting the enginehouse where you show it because you have the most available space there, but it seems a bit odd to have it on top of a hill in the country, with nothing else nearby.

 

Looking at your earlier plan, could you replace one of the short curves on the left side of the station with a wye turnout and place the enginehouse either in the corner or between the two loop tracks? If the latter, you would need a retaining wall behind it. Not ideal, but you need to make compromises when working with a small space ;-)

 

The former location could just be scenery, or maybe a small industry appropriate to the location. If you place anything there, you will need a road connection.

[velotrain]

Looking at the new track plan again, I think the basic problem is the separate loop for the enginehouse. If you get rid of that, I think it would clean up the design.

 

If you're saying that you want a longer siding to store a longer train when not running, you could use curved turnouts and hide a siding under the hill.

[valkyriepm]

Thank you velotrain! You gave me a lot to consider. I'm gonna try out taking out the loop.

The plan of placing the engine house up there was, apart from the space, the idea of making on the left side of the layout an urban landscape with houses up the hill and left the right side for the nature-side.

 

Martin

[velotrain]

The plan of placing the engine house up there was, apart from the space, the idea of making on the left side of the layout an urban landscape with houses up the hill and left the right side for the nature-side.

Martin - I hadn't realized that. If you think you can make it look connected to the urban area, that could work, but it just seems so far away from the station and yard, which I think is typically where you usually find the enginehouse.

 

There is one thing I think you can/should keep from the new plan - the existing double loop is longer, so there is a somewhat longer run.

 

One thing I like on all your plans is that the front track is not exactly parallel to the front of the board, which makes things more visually interesting.

 

One other possible option for you - using the curved turnouts you could make a long siding on the upper level, about where the entrance to the enginehouse was. I hope I don't sound like I'm contradicting myself ;-) This could be a passing place for trains running in opposite directions from the station - and/or, give you that longer storage track you wanted.

[velotrain]

I lied - having just thought of another option, which in turn led to some other thoughts ;-)

 

I was bothered by that new loop on the outside right cutting through the station building space, although realized that was just from quickly exploring your new idea. However, it got me thinking about that track at the bottom. If you go back to the old plan, and run that spur track along the platform, you could add a turnout so the enginehouse is in the bottom right corner, which I think works a lot better.

 

I then thought that you could use wye turnouts at both ends of the station area, and maybe even for the spur tracks also? I think it looks a little better than the 140's - especially for passenger equipment, and maybe works better also?

 

Sorry to give you so many new things to think about ;-)

[velotrain]

Here's a sketch of what I was suggesting for the station - yard - enginehouse.

 

The short stub track could be for a 2-3 car DMU set.

 

You could perhaps even add a third uncovered engine track.

 

The entire left end of the layout is free for the village/town/urban area.

 

[valkyriepm]

Thank you so much for given it so much thoght velotrain! I love other people opinions becouse can see others things I don't. I like the last idea you posted, but I should consider the third track idea. The station that goes there is  platform with http://www.1999.co.jp/eng/10182137. So my first idea with that track exiting was that it went between houses and a street on the back of the station. So, would't it look weird a third track with that kind of station or is it ok?

On the other hand, also liked the idea of a station on the top, with service track or even locate the shed there?

The reason of using mini point was, beside the space, becouse I already have 3 with 3 more on their way :P . I'll play around a little more with the scarm and your ideas and see what comes up.

 

Martin

 

BTW: Does exists a Tomix version of the Kato pit track?

Edited March 24, 2017 by valkyriepm

[velotrain]

Martin - "So my first idea with that track exiting was that it went between houses and a street on the back of the station. So, would't it look weird a third track with that kind of station or is it ok"

 

Are you speaking of the station track that you showed as straight along the bottom edge of the layout? My feeling was 1) that it is strange to have a track near a station that isn't along a platform, and 2) this would allow the engine shed in that corner, which I think works better overall.

Also, many stations (certainly in Europe) had a track like this, often used by railcars so they could park (and load) very near the station building.

 

"On the other hand, also liked the idea of a station on the top, with service track or even locate the shed there?"

 

I was suggesting just a possible passing siding there, not a station, as the main station is so close that I think it would look strange to have another one that nearby. Since I don't know how you plan to have the layout look and how extensive the town will be, it's hard for me to comment, other than to say that the lower location seems the more traditional location for a station.

 

"The reason of using mini point was, beside the space, because I already have 3 with 3 more on their way ."

 

I do like the mini points for trams, but they might cause trouble with some pieces of your rolling stock, and they look very sharp for track used by passenger trains. I realize that using so many wye turnouts is not prototypical, but the benefit on a model layout is that they prove a 280 radius instead of 140 radius in the same amount of space. They can do this as both sides are curved, not just one as with the mini points. You could use the mini points on a future (3rd) mini tram layout, using R140 track!

 

Others should speak up here with their thoughts - I'm well aware that my views are often not unanimous ;-)

 

"BTW: Does exists a Tomix version of the Kato pit track?"

 

You probably know that this is a recent addition for Kayo, and AFAIK Tomix does not have one. However, unlike others, I don't think it is that difficult to use both types of track together, and Kato even makes a special piece to do this, so you could easily use the pit tracks in your engine shed if you want to.

[valkyriepm]

Ok! Here's a little variation applying some of the things you suggested:

 

 

I'll try making a version with normal points or wye points and see how come out. I'm liking the design, but size is starting to be an issue :(

 

Maybe it's time to separate and start another layout also? :P :D

 

Martin

[velotrain]

I'd suggest testing whatever equipment you plan to use (the moreso the longer it is) on this layout on the R140 turnouts before fixing any track down.

 

"Conventional logic" is that these turnouts are only for trams and short freight stock - not passenger cars . . .

 

I was suggesting the wye's both for appearance and operational reliability.

 

Is it really any larger now than the version you had the 3D plan for?

 

I don't know about the right side, but that outer radius on the left certainly seems like more than you need.

Reducing both inner and outer radius on the left would allow you to change the angle of the station, giving less depth, but with similar length. However, I don't know if there are track components to support that.

 

Another consideration is that you'd want to level out the upper passing track - if you would ever want to park "loose" cars there; locos would be OK.

[valkyriepm]

Yes! I've checked my trains and all of them go fine. Of course I can't make them pass too fast, but work OK. All my rolling stock is Tomytec two cars EMUs and one 3 cars, that goes OK too. I have ordered my first bigger train (115-1000 four cars), but I know is not for this layout ;)

 

Martin

[densha17]

That looks a good idea. Were you able to finish this one?

[valkyriepm]

Hi Densha! I didn't start to build it yet. The truth is that I'm looking to design a smaller one. The other day did the layout over a table and, as some members mention before, the bigger trains (like 20m) tend to derail on some mini-switches. So, I was considering on make something on the style of T-track (is there any with a standard for FineTrack?) modules so I can run bigger trains and make one or two micro-layout so I can use the 6 mini-switches I own :P  

Still looking for inspiration o_O

 

Martin

[kvp]

Hi Densha! I didn't start to build it yet. The truth is that I'm looking to design a smaller one. The other day did the layout over a table and, as some members mention before, the bigger trains (like 20m) tend to derail on some mini-switches. So, I was considering on make something on the style of T-track (is there any with a standard for FineTrack?) modules so I can run bigger trains and make one or two micro-layout so I can use the 6 mini-switches I own

The FineTrack module standard is called EasyTrolley, but it's mostly for trams using mini switches and R140/R177 curves. http://trainweb.org/tomix/

 

For your layout, i've redrawn your last idea using R280 Y turnouts only, that are safe for most trains as the double crossover is also R280.

[valkyriepm]

Thank you kvp! I'll re-draw the SCARM plan. 

In the meantime, I'm working on the repaint of a greenmax footbridge and looking to add some detail and weathering on a Sankei kit. These are lovely kits but, being paper structures, I'm looking the way to add the weathering effects with watercolor pencils maybe? 

Anyway, have to design a mini layout to start working on again :)

 

Martin

[cteno4]

Martin,

 

I've had good luck with papercraft hitting them with matte clearcoat then more traditional weathering. Dry powers, pastels, chalks, makeups all should work fine. Heavy India ink washes I expect might be a little more challenging, but doing them with mainly alcohol base may help not warp things. I've also hit the backs of papercraft parts with matte clearcoat before assembling to try to seal them up well to avoid humidity warping. With the sankei I think that's probably not necessary with their multiple layer approach, but I've wondered how well they will hold up over the years. On larger ones I'm at least planning on adding a little bracing under the roof sections that tend to be thinner and are usually where things can droop some.

 

I've not yet weathered any sankei kits, but it's onnthe list of experimentation to dos! Will be interesting to hear your results.

 

Cheers

 

Jeff